41–50 of 448 posts
Should replace Google with HCL. The actual employer and one lobbying against unionization
"HCL employee and union organizer Ben Gwin says HCL workers make between $30,000-60,000 a year, and it varies widely." That's really low. I wonder what kind of work they do for Google.
The painfully obvious answer is that the work is low skill. Why? Because the job market in the Bay Area is such that high skilled labor can easily and quickly find more gainful employment. It doesn’t make it better for them to earn less, and a union is one way to group high and low skill labor pool such as the whole can have a better quality of life.
There are two reasons why programmers (of a certain sort) make so much money:
1) It’s an area of speculation, how much revenue can such people produce? Because it’s well known that some white male programmers will make a fuckton of revenue happen, the rest of us get higher wages in the “glow” of that.
There’s not a cultural belief among capitalists that black women programmers, or talented chefs, are making “unicorn money” happen so there’s no glow there.
2) There are a ton of programmers who won a lottery of having that skill in a time when it was going to make you rich. That’s no longer true, there is more competition now and just being a coder in a position of privilege is not enough.... but there are now a big number of rich white male programmers in the Bay Area who are trying to “do it again” and so they are showering money on other programmers who remind them of themselves.
It’s a halo of money. It will disappear soon. It’s not based on skill. If you’re making it—good job... get that money. You may even be highly skilled, in which case—good job. That’s impressive. But don’t think your skills have anything to do with why other people aren’t making the same money as you.
I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose…
I think it has to be framed against the baseline of pervasive anti-union ideology in the US. When people have been inculcated all their lives with the idea that labor organizing is bad, they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs, it doesn’t take too much to push them back towards this baseline. Or at least enough to quash the union.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It probably won’t be that analogous. I suspect that having the parallel, contract labor force is at least somewhat about exerting additional control over those employees that are actually permanent. A kind of implicit threat that your employment status can be downgraded.
I think the threat of firing is more relevant - no one gets downgraded to a contractor, you just get pushed out the door
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is not about whether it crosses the line of legality, but whether it crosses the standards set by Google. Would Google admit to treating their own employees in this way? If not, it's reasonable to demand the same from their suppliers, legality aside.
I don't think Google is particularly pro-union, so Google's standards on this front are probably not very different from expecting that partners remain within the bounds of law. I want to reiterate that it has not been established that any illegal anti-union activity has actually taken place. The only thing that we know for sure is that USW believes it has. I strongly doubt that Google is opposed to HCL being more re…
We should all unionize IMHO
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
At its core, it is about people agreeing to act together in order to live better lives.
I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose…
I think it has to be framed against the baseline of pervasive anti-union ideology in the US. When people have been inculcated all their lives with the idea that labor organizing is bad, they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs, it doesn’t take too much to push them back towards this baseline. Or at least enough to quash the union.
I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it has to be framed against the baseline of pervasive anti-union ideology in the US. When people have been inculcated all their lives with the idea that labor organizing is bad, they’re all just temporarily embarrassed corporate execs, it doesn’t take too much to push them back towards this baseline. Or at least enough to quash the union.
What percentage of your life have you been being inculcated with the idea that your political opponents believe themselves to be temporarily embarrassed millionaires?
My political opponents are actual, non-embarrassed millionaires and billionaires from families of millionaires and billionaires.
My political allies are temporarily embarrassed millionaires, from the folks accepting below-market salaries to work at a potential unicorn to the folks buying literal lotto tickets at the corner store. A few of them are no longer temporarily embarrassed, having joined the right startup, which only goes to demonstrate that the worldview is correct. Things worked out for them without unionizing, clearly things will work out for me too one day.
I always wonder about these ham-handed anti-union efforts. I assume they must work to some degree, or they wouldn't do it. But it seems like the sudden escalation of anti-union arguments would only end up working in favor of the union. Because it betrays how against it they are. It confirms that yes, this union will have an effect, and not in management's favor. Like "Clearly we're onto something here if they oppose…